Re: The mass value of the electron-volt

Stephen Bint wrote:
> 
> "Uncle Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Stephen Bint wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been trying to find out how the mass value of an electron volt
> was
> > > determined, without any luck. Can anyone recommend a source of
> information
> > > about the history and/or reasoning behind the common unit for mass and
> > > energy?
> >
> > Jesus H. Christ,
> >
> > Google
> > electron volt to grams
> >
> >  output is
> >
> > 1 electron volt = 1.78266173x10^(-33) grams
> >
> > An electron volt is energy.  E=mc^2.  Crack your "CRC Handbook."
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
> 
> That is not the answer to my question. I want to know how how it was
> determined that
> > 1 electron volt = 1.78266173x10^(-33) grams
> 
> > Jesus H. Christ,
> Exapseration at the stupidity of others is not a product of intelligence,
> nor wisdom, but of vanity.
> 
> Stephen

An electron volt is just the energy gained by an electron when traveling
through a potential difference of 1 volt. The mass equivalent of that
energy is given by 
E = mc^2.

OTOH, the equation can be interpreted much differently than the standard
interpretation. According to my own derivation of this equation, it
expresses a relationship between the energy and the mass of a sample of
neutral matter, not an equivalence. Note also that an equivalence would
require the term c to be dimensionless, thus simple logic supports this
interpretation. Similarly the number of fingers per hand is a constant
ratio, but this in no way implies that a hand is equivalent to fingers,
the palm and thumb are also required in order to make a hand.
Analogously mass requires the additional element of the speed of light
squared in order to make rest energy. IOW the fundamental particles of
which the matter is composed are moving at an  average speed of c wrt
the object that they compose. This necessity is also derived
mathematically in my paper, and is in fact prerequisite to the
derivation of E=mc^2. Thus either the fundamental particles of matter
are massless, and are bosons, or SR is incorrect in that the alternative
is that massive particle can and do propagate faster than c. OTOH there
is a third option, that fundamental charges are neither massive or
bosons, but mass is instead a property only of systems of these
particles, which latter is preferred by the E=mc^2 relationship in that
E is just the electromagnetic PE in my derivation of the equation.
Electromagnetic PE in turn requires more than the existence of a single
quanta of charge, it requires at least two of them in relative motion.
An orbit will do, and when two such particles are placed into a common
orbit then the equation E=mc^2 describes the mass energy ratio of that
system. IOW it only applies to atomic, or 'neutral' matter.

Richard Perry